Daily Mail comment: Terrorism, liberty and a question of timing

It is no coincidence that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose this weekend to warn - in a tabloid newspaper interview - that the Islamist terror threat to the British way of life is 'severe and growing'.

With Parliament soon to decide on her proposal that detention without charge in terror cases should increase from a maximum of 28 days to 42, she was giving rebellious Labour MPs an unsubtle reminder of where their loyalties lie.

She had nothing new to say but the message was clear - support this Bill or you are soft on terrorism and the blood of future victims may be on your hands.

Scroll down for more

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has warned the threat of terrorism is 'strong and growing'

But is this really true? Surely only the most slavish of her colleagues will swallow Miss Smith's hollow arguments.

For example, why 42 days? Why not 90, as the Government first wanted, or seven as it was until 2003, or 56, as was floated last year, or 14, as it was before 2006. Indeed why not 28 days, as it is now?

Since the 28-day limit was introduced, there is no evidence that any terror investigation has been hampered because charges had to be brought prematurely, and even the police - though broadly in favour - are not pushing for the extension with any zeal.

Senior Government law officers are opposed, some believing that such Draconian legislation targeting one section of the community might create more terrorists than it catches.

Everyone understands the seriousness of the terror threat and when society is under attack from within, civil liberties inevitably suffer.

However, that does not mean they should be surrendered lightly - or, worst of all, for short-term political gain.

Miss Smith knows that if the Bill falls, it will be a calamity for the Prime Minister.

As the latest polls show Mr Brown less popular even than Neville Chamberlain following his humiliation by the Nazis, a Commons defeat might quickly lead to an issue of confidence. There are already mutterings about threats to his leadership.

So, in order to balm her party's self-inflicted wounds, Miss Smith is prepared to manipulate the fears of both the public and her colleagues to drive through a piece of ill-conceived and muddled legislation.

In any circumstances this would be cynical in the extreme.

When individual liberties and the defence of the realm are involved, it is nothing short of disgraceful.

Licence to f lout law

If you are a normally law-abiding motorist who happens to stray into a bus lane, be ten minutes late back to your parking meter, or be caught on speed camera doing five mph over the limit, the chances are you will be pursued quickly and with the full rigour of the law.

If you are part of the underclass of two million rogue drivers, without tax, insurance, and frequently even a licence, you are likely to enjoy many years of trouble-free motoring.

Figures showing there are 63 per cent more tax evaders now than in 1999, yet only half as many successful prosecutions will leave most motorists speechless with impotent rage. Only one in 20 tax-evaders is ever prosecuted.

With the proliferation of spy cameras under this overbearing, snooping Government-not to mention some deluded chief constables who seem to think hounding decent motorists is a higher priority than tackling crime - car drivers are oppressed as never before.

The least they are entitled to expect is that some of the billions extorted from them every year for trivial offences should be spent on pursuing those drivers who really make our roads unsafe.